A LETTER unto a PERSON of Honour & Quality, Containing some ANIMADVERSIONS upon the Bishop of Worcester's LETTER.  
LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1662.   

Honourable and Worthy Sir,  
I Am to thank You for the last piece of Divertisement you gave me, in sending the Bishop of Worcester's Letter, and I wish you would have let me enjoyed the satisfaction I took in reading it, without obliging me to give You my sense upon it: For besides my unwillingness to meddle in a Personal quarrel, it will not, I think, be very safe for any to engage against so angry an adversary, which I shall be thought to do, though I resolve to speak nothing but Truth in the Character I intent to give of him; And it is briefly this, That, in fewer leaves I never yet read more Passion, which is so very predominant, that his disorderly & abrupt stile doth altogether partake of it; so that the Bishop's best way will be, to get his Heat mistaken for Zeal, for else it may justly be accounted something that hath a worse Name, and which, in the Dog-days will be very dangerous.  
This being, Sir, my Judgement upon the whole Letter, You may well expect that I should make it good, by an induction from particular instances; but before I do this I must deal impartially, and assure you, that as to the main Controversy, I think the Bishop hath much the better of Mr. Baxter: For if the Question between them, was as Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson do attest, such a command is so evidently lawful, that I shall much wonder if Mr. Baxter did ever dispute it; and till he doth clearly disprove that that was not the thing in Question, I must needs think that he hath much forgot himself in making an Imperfect and Partial Relation.  
Setting therefore aside the business of that particular Contest (wherein You see how much I am inclined to favour the B●shop) there are other things in his Letter of general concernment, which I think liable to just Exception; As  
First, That he supposeth there is so strict an Union, and so inseparable a Dependence between Kings and Bishops, that they must stand and fall together; and all who are enemies to the one, must needs be enemies to the other. I know very well this Axiom is much talked of, and some advantage may be taken to confirm it, from the event of our late Wars: You know likewise, Sir, how much my Judgement is for the Order of Bishops; and how Passionate a Lover I am both of the King's Person and Government, but yet, being thus called by You to declare the truth, though contrary to my own Humour and Interest, I must needs say, 1. It is clear from Story, that Kings were in all parts of the world, in their most flourishing Estate, before ever Bishops were heard of; and no reason can be given, why what hath once been, may not with the same terms of convenience be again. 2. Bishop's as they are by Law established in England, are purely the King's subordinate Ministers, in the management of Ecclesiastical Affairs; which his Majesty may confer upon what order of men he pleases, though they be as much Lay-people as You and I are. It is therefore very injurious to the King's Authority, to aver that He could not otherwise uphold and maintain it, then by preserving the Undue, and, as some think, Antichristian Dignity and Prelation of his inferior Officers. 3. Bishops are so little useful to support the Regal Dignity (which is founded upon a distinct Basis of its own) that upon enquiry it will be found, how none have been greater enemies to the True and Undoubted Sovereignty of Princes, than some Bishops themselves: for by their Officious, and scarce warrantable, intermeddling in Civil Affairs; by their Absurd and Insignificant distinguishing between Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes (of which last they have always made themselves sole Judges) they mangle the King's Authority, and as to Church-matters (which may be extended as far as they please) they leave the King nothing of Supremacy but the Name. The Pope of Rome therefore (who is the great Father of all such Bishops) hath improved this Notion and Distinction so fare that in ordine ad spiritualia, he hath laboured to subject all Civil Empires unto his sole Jurisdiction. So that if the Bishop of Worcester's Rule hold good, of Crimine ab uno— Disce omnes, 
Pag 21.  i.e. That all men who are of a Party may be judged of by the miscarriages of one, than I must leave it to You to judge, what all those Bishops, that are of the Bishop of Worcester's complexion, really drive at, by the fatal example of that one Bishop's Usurpation: For  
Secondly, That Assertion, that the Bishop of Worcester (and consequently every other Bishop) is the sole Pastor of all the Congregations in his Diocese, if it be●t all defensible, 
Pag. 2, & 3.  I am sure can be defended only by those Arguments; which are commonly alleged to maintain the Pope's Supremacy over all Churches whatever. For since a Bishop can not otherwise discharge his duty herein, then by providing Substitutes, what hinders but the Bishop of Rome may as well oversee a million of Churches, as the B●shop of Worcester five hundred? Since if Deputation be lawful, more or less compass and circuit of ground doth not at all alter the case. I forbear to urge how contrary this Practice is to the Doctrine of the Apostles, both Paul and Peter (I hope the Bishop will not take it ill that I do not call them Saints, for these Holy men do not need any stile of Honour out of the Pope's Calendar.) When Paul had sent for the Elders of the Church at Ephesus, he bids them to feed the Church of God, over which (not he himself, 
Act. 20 28.  by his sole Authority, as Bishop of the Diocese, but) the Spirit of God had made them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Overseers, 
1 Pet. 5.2.  or to use the proper stile, Bishops. And Peter commands his Fellow-Elders, (for so doth that Apostle condescend to call himself) to feed the Flock which was among them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseeing, or Acting the Bishops, not (like the Bishop of Worcester) as Lording it over God's Heritage, but as Patterns of the Flock. From which places we learn, not only that those two so much controverted Names of Bishop and Presbyter, are without distinction ascribed to the same Persons, but likewise, that whoever feed the Flock, are, under Christ (whom the Apostle there styles the Chief-Shepherd) the next and immediate Pastors of the Flock; and to extend the Pastoral Power beyond the actual care of Feeding, is a Notion altogether unscriptural, and likewise leaves us no bounds where to fix, till we come to centre upon some one Universal Pastor, who may claim this Power over the whole world, by the same parity of reason, that a Bishop doth over one Diocese.  
Thirdly, It seems to be a Light, and (to say no more) unseemly trifling with sacred Scripture, to affirm that those words of our Saviour concerning such as come not in by the door, 
Pag. 3.  and therefore are Thiefs and Robbers, aught to be understood of such Ministers, as preach to Congregations without the Bishop's Licence. Which thing, the Bishop (in great Heat and Earnestness, as if he had done very well in it) tells us more than once, 
P. 3, 6, 8, & 9  that it was the Principal reason why he silenced Mr. Baxter. Truly if this practice be justifiable, and those who design themselves to preach the Gospel, must, besides their Ordination, procure a Licence from a Bishop, to do that, which a Woe is denounced against, if they offer to omit, than 1. I see not what Ordination signifies, since the Power that then is given, no Authority from Man can take away, any more than dissolve the Contract of a Marriage, much less impeach and hinder the free use of it, except for Moral and notoriously vicious Misdemeanours. 2. For one Minister of the Gospel (for certainly a Bishop is no more) to Silence another, and that for no better Reason, then because his Fellow-Minister is desirous to preach the Gospel without a new Licence, this is an abuse of Dominion, which as our Saviour doth no where countenance, so the first Ages of the Church were altogether unacquainted with. For the Bishop's instance of our Saviour's putting to silence the Scribes and Pharisees is both Impertinent and False, because our Saviour did only silence them by Argument, which the Bishop may do whenever he is able; but what is that to an Authoritative and Imperious commanding men to be Silent. Besides, even then when our Saviour was most strict in pronouncing Woes against the Pharisees, in that very Chapter, he is so far from forbidding the Pharisees to preach, that he commands his Disciples both to Hear and to Obey their Doctrine. So that since the Bishop will needs have the Presbyterians to be Pharisees, let him but allow them the same Liberty of Teaching the People, as our Saviour did the other, and I believe they will not (at least were I a Presbyterian I should not) envy his Lordship, either his Tide or Maintenance, how undue and unmerited soever they both be. And though the Bishop is pleased to say that the Presbyterians preach nothing but Sedition and Treason (which is most false, as being directly contrary to their declared Principles) yet the Pharisees taught something worse, and that was Blasphemy: Yet our Saviour (who sure had more power, and withal, more care of his Church then the Bishop of Worcester) did not go about by Force to prohibit them. I wish therefore, that this Bishop and the rest of his Brethren (if any are Choleric and Testy enough to be of his mind) would consider, that as by silencing their Fellow-Ministers, for such frivolous and slight pretences, they usurp a Power, which Christ never gave, so at the last day he will not thank them for the Exercise of it.  
Fourthly, How consistent with the Civil Peace (for as to Christian Charity, 
Pag 8.  the whole thing is but a Letter of defiance against it) the Bishop's Distinction is about the Act of Indemnity, and (the so much forgotten) Act of Oblivion, I hope his Majesty and the Parliament will in due time consider. For he is so hardy as to tell us, That the King by it, only pardoned the corporal Punishment; but the Church had not, nor ought not to forgive the Scandal, till honourable amends were made her by Confession and Recantation. Where by speaking of the Church, as distinct from the State (I mean in point of Coercive Jurisdiction) the Bishop would make us believe, that after his Majesty and the Parliament have forgiven men their Civil Crimes, there is still another Power, which he calls the Church, unto which they are still accountable, even so far as to make a Public Recantation. Here I wish the Bishop would have spoken out of the Clouds, and plainly told us, what he meant by the Church: For if it be a Congregation of the Faithful met together for the Worship of God, as the Definition of Scripture, and of the Church of England is in the 39 Articles; this will not at all advantage him, since such a Church hath no Coercive or Imposing Power: But if he means the Hierarchy or Ecclesiastical State, by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, etc. there can be nothing more False, or more dishonourable unto our Civil Government, than to affirm that it lies in their power, not only to Punish, but likewise to exact a Recantation, for those Faults which the King and Parliament have not only pardoned, but under severe Penalties commanded should never more be remembered: And therefore I doubt not, but they will resent this Malicious and Ill-grounded Fancy. And since the Bishop is so overzealous for the very Letter of the Law, when it imposes Ceremonies, give me leave a little to wonder, that one of his Profession and Place in the Church should so unchristianly go against it, when it enjoins Moderation and Forgiveness as to Civil Injuries. Such as he, who make the Law, instead of being a Buckler to protect Converts, a Sword only to cut off all such as were once Offenders, labour what they can to make men Desperate, and thereby render the Peace of the Nation, and, in that, the Prosperity and Welfare of his Majesty very Insecure and Hazardous. For what can more enrage Men to take Wild and Forbidden courses, then to see even Preachers of the Gospel strive to widen their Wounds, and, contrary to their own former Professions, to pull off that Plaster, which the Wisdom of our State Physicians had provided to heal our Distempers.  
Fifthly, It is Bold and Impious (I know not how to express it more mildly) what he affirms, 
Pag. 11.  that If to command an Act, which by accident may prove an occasion of sin, be sinful, then God himself cannot command any thing. For, though as I said before, I will by no means own that Assertion, yet, a thing, which by accident may become sinful, may be Unlawful, in another to command, for want of sufficient Authority. whereas Gods Sovereign power doth without dispute or Controversy make all his Commands to be Just; and therefore his Name ought not to be mentioned in our trivial disputes, because every such vain Use of it, is nothing but a diminution and lessening of his Greatness.  
Sixthly, That an Offence, to which a disproportionable Penalty is annexed, is not to be measured by the Quality of the Act considered in itself, but by the mischievous consequences it may produce; whether this aught to hold good in Civil Laws, becomes neither the Bishop nor me to dispute: but in Divinity nothing can be more False and Dangerous. For to impose, in the Worship of God as necessary circumstances of it, things confessedly trivial and needless; and, upon the forbearance of them, to debar any from the benefits first of Christian; and then of Civil Communion; is a thing which hath not the least pretence of Scripture or Primitive practice to justify it. For our Saviour tells us, That whoever were not against him, were for him; and the Apostle bids us to receive our weak Brother, and not to judge, much less to burden his Conscience. Unto which Sacred Canon, nothing can be more directly contrary, than what the Bishop most Incompassionately tells us, That the Laws do well to punish, even with non-admission to the Sacrament, such as will not, or perhaps dare not, kneel. And the Reason he gives▪ is equally Apocrypha, Because, saith he, it becomes not the Lawgivers to endanger the Church's peace for their sake: As if first, It did not much more become all Lawgivers, in the things of God, to observe the Law of Christ, which is a Law of Love and Liberty. Secondly, As if the Church's peace would not be much more endangered, by the Pressing of things doubtful, than by the forbearance of them. For since by the enforcing of such things, as God hath no where commanded, our Christian liberty is infringed; from hence it follows, that, if we ought not, yet we lawfully may refuse, to submit unto such Impositions; as our Saviour did, in not washing his hands before Meat; and the Apostle Paul, in the case of Circumcission.  
Seventhly, As for the chain of Consequences, which the Bishop links and ties together. 
Pag. 20.  As that from Diversity in external Rites, ariseth Dislike; from Dislike, Enmity; from Enmity, Opposition; thence, Schism in the Church, and Sedition in the State: For proof of which he doth very virulently instance in our Unhappy times. To prevent which, he tells us, That the State cannot be safe without the Church, nor the Church without Unity, nor Unity without Uniformity, nor Uniformity without a strict and rigorous Imposition. To all this I answer, that it is a mere Rope of Sand, and the Parts of his Chain do as little hang together, as Sampsons' Foxes did before they were tied by the Tails, which course the Bishop hath imitated, not forgetting to put in even the Firebrand itself to make up the comparison. For 1. Nothing is more clear than that there hath been, nay aught to be, Diversity in external Forms, without any Dislike at all as to the Person of another: For the Apostles that preached to the Circumcision gave the right of Fellowship unto the Apostles of the Gentiles; although their Outward Rites in public Worship, were far more different, than those, which, by any of the most distant persuasions, are now practised in England. 2. The State may be preserved, without the least reference to the Church, unless it turns Persecuter of it; as is evident in those 300 years before Constantine's time, in which there was no Church at all legally countenanced; and for some scores of years after, both the Christians and Gentiles were equally advanced and favoured. 3. Unity, I mean such as Christ came to establish (which is an Unity in heart and spirit) doth not in the least depend upon Uniformity, but upon Charity, i. e, a Christian and a Candid forbearance of one another in things Circumstantial, when we agree in the Essentials of Worship; which is a thing, that mere Civility would teach, though Religion were silent in it. And whereas the Bishop thinks he hath got some advantage, by reviving the memory of our late Civil Wars which, were he either Christian or Man enough, he would wish, were eternally buried in silence) I must (to use his own Phrase) tell him in his ear, that our Wars did not arise from the separation of Conscientious Dissentors, but from the violence and Fury of Unconscionable Imposers: Who would not allow their Brethren (who desired nothing more than to live peaceably by them) that sober Liberty, which the Law of God commanded, and no Law of Man could justly deprive them of. And whether the public maintaining of the very same Positions and Practices, may not in time beget the same Feuds and Animosities, although, this Bishop cares not, yet I doubt not, but his Majesty, as he now doth, so will always graciously consider.  
Eighthly, Whether, as to the matter of Fact, the French Protestants do enjoin standing at the Sacrament; & the Dutch, kneeling; I will labour to inform myself of some more  witness than this Bishop; for in the Ecclesiastical Laws of those Churches, which I have carefully perused, I can find no such matter. But if they did so, this would not at all justify the Imposition of Kneeling; because 1. The Question is de Jure, whether it be lawful to prescribe any one such certain Posture, without submitting to which, it shall not be lawful to admit any to the Sacrament, and till the Affirmative of this be proved by Scriptures, Examples, and Instances from the Practice of men, will not satisfy a doubting conscience. 2, Neither of those fore mentioned Postures are so much to exception as Kneeling; because this last is manifestly more superstitious, for 1. It varies most of any from the First Pattern. 2. It hath been monstrously abused by the Papists to Idolatry; which alone renders it most Unsafe to be practised, and most Unwarrantable to be imposed: Especially, till it be again explained, as in the very first Liturgy of all it was; which I particularly mention, to show how little our Reformation since Edw. 6th. time, hath been improved.  
Lastly, As it was needlessly, so was it likewise Uncharitably done, to revile the whole body of Presbyterians for the Faults of Mr. Baxter; upon supposition that either he is a Presbyterian, or so culpable as the Bishop would make him. For since every man is to bear his own Burden, what Bible did the Bishop find it in, that he might, without scruple, asperse a whole order of Men, for the pretended miscarriage of one; who, by the Bishop's own Confession, was not of so Amicable and compliant a Temper as the rest: And therefore certainly they ought not to be brought in as Parties in that crime of Unpeaceableness, from which the Bishop just before had absolved them: but choler spoils the Memory; and, sure his Brethren the Bishops would not take it well of a Presbyterian, should he cry out Crimine ab uno, disce omnes— See what manner of Spirit these Bishops are of, and judge them all by the Bishop of Worcester's example. Truly, Sir. I am a little angry, when I consider how much this one man's Indiscretion hath exposed all of the same Order to Censure; For were they all like him (which I do not, nor dare not think) I should not scruple to pray hearty, what the Bishop doth in scorn concerning the Preachers— Lord deliver us from such Bishops. And let all the People say, Amen.  
Thus, Sir, you see how willing I am to serve you in proposing my Exceptions, the fuller prosecution of which I must leave to some other Pen, more able both in Divinity and Policy; who may convince, both the Bishop and the World, that it is not yet time to sow such Tares; This Age is a little too knowing to be gulled, with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or to take every thing for Oracle which a Bishop's Passion dictates. But before I ease you of your Trouble in reading this, I will crave leave to give you a Taste of the Reverend Father's deep wisdom in two or three particulars—  
1. In that he declaimes, so fiercely, as if he would crack his Girdle, against all those who force all Communicants to come unto them and be particularly examined before they admit them to the Sacrament. Indeed, Sir, this was an Imposition, as no way Justifiable, so, for aught I can hear, no where practised. The Custom being that men were only once for all examined, at their first coming to the Sacrament; which the Bishop himself allows under other Names of being Catechised and Instructed. It was therefore wisely done or the Bishop, this cold weather, to set up a Man of straw, and then get himself heat by threshing it.  
2 It is methinks very Politicly done to Exclaim against the poor Covenant; and, in great zeal, to wish all the Books, which defend it, were burnt by the Authors, to save the Hangman a labour. For here let his Adversary do what he can, the Bishop will be too hard for him: For if he takes no notice of the Covenant, the Bishop clearly gains the Cause, if he ventures to assert it, he shall presently be confuted with a Confiscation. So that under the shelter of this Unanswerable Dilemma I leave him, lest I should be gored with the Horns of it. And this I speak, Sir, as one that, though I never took, but always opposed the Covenant; yet I have a very good opinion of many that did, and withal a great Tenderness for the lawful Part of an Oath, after it is once solemnly taken. I will only add this, That since that Oath hath been so generally taken, even by those that were most Active in his late Majesty's service; and several times ventured their Lives, to signalise their Loyalty; I think the Ashes of it (since it was burnt by Public Authority) had much better have been suffered to rest quietly, than thus to be blown up and scattered abroad by the Bishop's furious Breath, when no occasion was given him so much as to mention it.  
Lastly, I can never enough commend the Bishop's wisdom, in resolving so angrily never to write again; for he is Old, and hath Traveled far, and knows that it is much easier to speak rash and unjustifiable things than to defend them. And therefore he deals with those, that he hath provoked, as witty Schoolboys do wish their Companions, first he hits them a box on the Ear, and then very discreetly retreats, and fairly runs away But if Goliath, who took upon him to defy the Host of Israel, should, as soon as ever he had done, have sneaked out of the Field, and thought he had done manfully enough in making a Bold Challenge, and in showing his Teeth at them; I believe the Philistines would hardly have thanked him for that Empty show of Valour, whereby he could not Conquer, but only enrage the Enemy. And whether the Bishops will not have the same opinion of this overforward and unwary Champion of theirs, I hope, Sir, you will neither inquire yourself, nor desire that I should: For I have already done enough to show how much I am,  
Jan. 21. SIR, Your most humble Servant D. E.